Pardon me for being blunt here, but what do these doctors think? Do they think that these intersex kids are going to run around everywhere with their genitals hanging out? We do have what are called Public Decency Laws.

Old post I know but I think gender reasignement is a correct term, rather than mutilation.

Providing the individual has had the appropriate hormonal checks etc they may well want be assigned something as near as 'normal' as possible. Surely that is what is happening here when we try to regain a 'normal' looking foreskin.

The whole picture of DSDs is complex and not really one to be banded about, rather dealt with sensitavely.

Old post I know but I think gender reasignement is a correct term, rather than mutilation.

Providing the individual has had the appropriate hormonal checks etc they may well want be assigned something as near as 'normal' as possible. Surely that is what is happening here when we try to regain a 'normal' looking foreskin.

The whole picture of DSDs is complex and not really one to be banded about, rather dealt with sensitavely.

John

I think problem comes because I huge percentage of the time the "guess" as to which gender someone will identify as is WRONG, and the attempt to normalize is nearly always anything but normal no matter what. As such, the appropriate humane course would be to let the intersexed person decide at a rationale age about any non-emergency interventions.

I do believe that people who are intersex should be left alone so that they can make their own decision about what they want to do.

But I don't think we should mix this issue up with circumcision. They are two completely different issues. Intersex people are born with a condition and are not normal. Circumcision is an amputation of people that are 100% normal and healthy. I think that discussing the two issues together takes away from how wrong RIC is. I hear people saying that they want all people to be protected from mutilation; females, males and intersex. While I agree with this, we need to start with protecting people who are normal and healthy, male or female. The intersex issue is very rare and many people feel that they are helping by making the intersex person male or female. So if they think that intersex mutilation is okay, and it's compared to RIC, then they are more likely to think that RIC is okay too.

A similar issue is people who bring up the spaying and neutering of animals. I feel it's wrong but it shouldn't be compared to RIC. One reason is because many animals breed too much and then there are millions of homeless animals that suffer and starve to death. So It's kind of a moral question of do the ends justify the means? So in a weird way I guess it does help animals (other animals, not the animal that was spayed or neutered). Also, comparing spaying/neutering to circumcision is comparing animals to humans. Animals do deserve rights, but I don't think it should be compared to humans. It takes away from how wrong RIC is.

I think problem comes because I huge percentage of the time the "guess" as to which gender someone will identify as is WRONG, and the attempt to normalize is nearly always anything but normal no matter what. As such, the appropriate humane course would be to let the intersexed person decide at a rationale age about any non-emergency interventions.

Forced cosmetic surgery is mutilation.

Man . . .

I used to think that mutilating perfectly healthy intersex people was fixing a defect. I'm honestly ashamed now. I regret ever feeling that way, especially because I felt that way while I was vehemently against cutting intact males.